Lavar pulls son out of UCLA.

[soccerdad72]

IMO the schools or the NCAA should make it a requirement to sign a commitment to remain in school and complete a degree or course of study if accepting a scholarship to attend, with a proviso that scholarship $$ must be repaid if the player leaves before the course of study is completed and joins the NBA.

It's unlikely that either the NCAA or the individual schools would do that - they take full advantage of milking the one year they get out of the 'superstar' high school kids, so the value of the scholarship is outweighed (in their view) by the revenue brought in either by their tournament appearance and/or TV appearances. Those schools that are truly interested in 'scholar-athletes' don't recruit the high school All-Americans. You also likely won't catch a game of theirs on TV either.

 

[cabanafrau]

It's unlikely that either the NCAA or the individual schools would do that - they take full advantage of milking the one year they get out of the 'superstar' high school kids, so the value of the scholarship is outweighed (in their view) by the revenue brought in either by their tournament appearance and/or TV appearances. Those schools that are truly interested in 'scholar-athletes' don't recruit the high school All-Americans. You also likely won't catch a game of theirs on TV either.

No kidding. As I said, the sideshow has co opted our schools and universities.

 

[MillauFr]

Which is why it's completely ridiculous that the sports sideshow has been allowed to co opt our schools and universities in the first place. Are these institutions in the business of education or sports?

And as far as the idea that the sports bring in revenue to the schools, nonsense. The sports consume the funds they bring in.

Agree 100%

 

[soccerdad72]

No kidding. As I said, the sideshow has co opted our schools and universities.

Pretty much, yeah. It's too big of business now for anything to likely happen, unfortunately.

Just found this article that showed that 24 universities brought in more than $100 million in revenue in 2016: http://www.businessinsider.com/schools-most-revenue-college-sports-2016-10/#2-texas--1835-million-24

 

[tarheelmjfan]

Kind of OT, but Adam Silver has stated more than once that he plans to abolish the one & done rule. Naturally, there will need to be negotiations with the players union, but the NBA is determined to see it end. The questions are: What will the terms be & when will the new rules take effect?

 

[sam_gordon]

IMO the schools or the NCAA should make it a requirement to sign a commitment to remain in school and complete a degree or course of study if accepting a scholarship to attend, with a proviso that scholarship $$ must be repaid if the player leaves before the course of study is completed and joins the NBA.

I don't totally disagree with you, but you also need to consider the following:
1) A scholarship is not guaranteed for 4 (or 5) years. It can be revoked (or renewed) year to year. So the school could decide after 2 years that the player isn't working out (or gets injured or a new coach comes in, etc) and cut the scholarship.
2) What if the player simply drops the sport? Maybe they're burned out? Maybe they decide to make money another way? Should they have to repay the scholarship $$?

 

[bcla]

I don't totally disagree with you, but you also need to consider the following:
1) A scholarship is not guaranteed for 4 (or 5) years. It can be revoked (or renewed) year to year. So the school could decide after 2 years that the player isn't working out (or gets injured or a new coach comes in, etc) and cut the scholarship.
2) What if the player simply drops the sport? Maybe they're burned out? Maybe they decide to make money another way? Should they have to repay the scholarship $$?

It's a little bit more complex, but currently there is the possibility of a four-year "guaranteed" athletic scholarship where the coach or athletic dept has no discretion to voluntarily pull a scholarship. The Pac-12 instituted that as a requirement for incoming freshmen athletes signed to a National Letter of Intent in 2014, but the rest of the "Power 5" conferences joined in. The NCAA has allowed it since 2012, but it was up to the individual athletic department to decide who got one. And these four-year scholarships can always be rescinded for things such as serious misconduct or refusal to participate in team activities. LiAngelo Ball clearly met the standard for "serious misconduct".

There's always the possibility of just dropping a sport and staying on. I've heard of it. However, there is a requirement to participate in all activities during the year, or the scholarship can be pulled mid-year. The reality is that there's not much of an incentive for an athletic dept to pull a scholarship mid-year, so they typically allow them to continue even if they do quit. They're not allowed to do something like give that scholarship to a walk-on.

 

[sam_gordon]

It's a little bit more complex, but currently there is the possibility of a four-year "guaranteed" athletic scholarship where the coach or athletic dept has no discretion to voluntarily pull a scholarship. The Pac-12 instituted that as a requirement for incoming freshmen athletes signed to a National Letter of Intent in 2014, but the rest of the "Power 5" conferences joined in. The NCAA has allowed it since 2012, but it was up to the individual athletic department to decide who got one. And these four-year scholarships can always be rescinded for things such as serious misconduct or refusal to participate in team activities. LiAngelo Ball clearly met the standard for "serious misconduct".

By far the majority of scholarship athletes are on a year to year deal. https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...t-4-year-athletic-scholarships-but-many-dont/

There's always the possibility of just dropping a sport and staying on. I've heard of it. However, there is a requirement to participate in all activities during the year, or the scholarship can be pulled mid-year. The reality is that there's not much of an incentive for an athletic dept to pull a scholarship mid-year, so they typically allow them to continue even if they do quit. They're not allowed to do something like give that scholarship to a walk-on.

But what's the difference between someone accepting an athletic scholarship, attending for a year, then giving up the sport and someone accepting an athletic scholarship, attending for a year, then going to the NBA?

 

[bcla]

By far the majority of scholarship athletes are on a year to year deal. https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...t-4-year-athletic-scholarships-but-many-dont/

Sure. However, if the talk was about UCLA players, then they're absolutely required to guarantee a four-year scholarship for freshman NLI signees under Pac-12 bylaws. Of course the student-athlete has the ability to withdraw at any time.

But what's the difference between someone accepting an athletic scholarship, attending for a year, then giving up the sport and someone accepting an athletic scholarship, attending for a year, then going to the NBA?

I wasn't really addressing that. I was just addressing that there's pretty much no incentive to drop a scholarship mid-year unless there's something egregious.

 

[cabanafrau]

By far the majority of scholarship athletes are on a year to year deal. https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...t-4-year-athletic-scholarships-but-many-dont/


But what's the difference between someone accepting an athletic scholarship, attending for a year, then giving up the sport and someone accepting an athletic scholarship, attending for a year, then going to the NBA?

Accepting the scholarship, attending for a year and then going to the NBA effectively renders the school a virtual NBA farm system, with the costs borne by those other than the NBA. Let the NBA or the student pay for it, or let the NBA finance their independent farm system elsewhere to vet prospective talent.

 

[sam_gordon]

Sure. However, if the talk was about UCLA players, then they're absolutely required to guarantee a four-year scholarship for freshman NLI signees. Of course the student-athlete has the ability to withdraw at any time.

But the post I quoted said the schools (notice the plural) or the NCAA should force the kids to stay for 4 years or pay back the scholarship. It wasn't specifically talking about UCLA.

 

[sam_gordon]

Accepting the scholarship, attending for a year and then going to the NBA effectively renders the school a virtual NBA farm system, with the costs borne by those other than the NBA. Let the NBA or the student pay for it, or let the NBA finance their independent farm system elsewhere to vet prospective talent.

That doesn't answer my question. If a student gets a basketball scholarship. Attends for a year, and then a) hits the lottery b) decides to quit basketball and still attend school or c) decides to quit basketball and school, should they be forced to payback the scholarship money? What's the difference?

 

[soccerdad72]

Accepting the scholarship, attending for a year and then going to the NBA effectively renders the school a virtual NBA farm system, with the costs borne by those other than the NBA. Let the NBA or the student pay for it, or let the NBA finance their independent farm system elsewhere to vet prospective talent.

I think you're underselling the value that the colleges are getting from these one-year athletes (or overselling the cost involved). The NCAA would hate if the NBA just created their own 18-year old league (they do already have a Developmental League, but that's just for players not good enough for the NBA team, not 'underaged' players), because it would mean the level of play in college basketball would be diminished and thus their product wouldn't be as valuable.

 

[cabanafrau]

I think you're underselling the value that the colleges are getting from these one-year athletes (or overselling the cost involved). The NCAA would hate if the NBA just created their own 18-year old league (they do already have a Developmental League, but that's just for players not good enough for the NBA team, not 'underaged' players), because it would mean the level of play in college basketball would be diminished and thus their product wouldn't be as valuable.

Shouldn't the school be focused on the "product" of educated students? Isn't that what the institutions were created for and ostensibly still be in the business of?

That doesn't answer my question. If a student gets a basketball scholarship. Attends for a year, and then a) hits the lottery b) decides to quit basketball and still attend school or c) decides to quit basketball and school, should they be forced to payback the scholarship money? What's the difference?

I'm referring to those athletes who take the scholarship, attend & then decide to cut and run to sign a pro sports contract. The student who attends and hits the lottery or decides to quit the sport and attend school or not attend school is no different from any other scholarship students.

 

[soccerdad72]

Shouldn't the school be focused on the "product" of educated students? Isn't that what the institutions were created for and ostensibly still be in the business of?

That's what the schools should focus on, absolutely. But eliminate football and basketball from some of these schools (and the millions of dollars that come with it) and it will likely negatively affect all students (either from increased tuition or lack of funding for other projects). I'm not saying that all of the revenue generated by these sports go into academic expenses, but at least a portion of a large university's budget relies on those revenues.

 

[cabanafrau]

That's what the schools should focus on, absolutely. But eliminate football and basketball from some of these schools (and the millions of dollars that come with it) and it will likely negatively affect all students (either from increased tuition or lack of funding for other projects). I'm not saying that all of the revenue generated by these sports go into academic expenses, but at least a portion of a large university's budget relies on those revenues.

Having personally had a very good look at several major universities over the past eight years demonstrates to me that athletic facilities consistently tend to be updated on a very regular basis, while other school facilities tend to lag far behind. I not only don't believe the funds from athletics benefit the schools at large, I also believe the schools commonly allow the athletic departments to have their cake and eat a chunk of the regular budget as well.

 

[bcla]

Accepting the scholarship, attending for a year and then going to the NBA effectively renders the school a virtual NBA farm system, with the costs borne by those other than the NBA. Let the NBA or the student pay for it, or let the NBA finance their independent farm system elsewhere to vet prospective talent.

Depends on the program. The primary one and done college basketball teams are generally making lots of money as a result of the success of their program. These are places like Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, Arizona, etc. A one and done generally has the talent to go anywhere and be noticed, and they occasionally go somewhere else (I remember Jaylen Brown at Cal).

However, the NBA draft only has two rounds and these days there can be up to a quarter of a draft being international players who never played college ball. There really aren't a whole lot of college players doing it.

 

[sam_gordon]

I'm referring to those athletes who take the scholarship, attend & then decide to cut and run to sign a pro sports contract. The student who attends and hits the lottery or decides to quit the sport and attend school or not attend school is no different from any other scholarship students.

But what's the difference between the athlete who only takes advantage of one year of scholarship and any other student who only takes advantage of one year? Or an athlete who uses a scholarship for one year and then drops the sport? I don't see why you feel the ones who go pro should pay back the scholarship money but those who don't shouldn't.

 

[bcla]

But what's the difference between the athlete who only takes advantage of one year of scholarship and any other student who only takes advantage of one year? Or an athlete who uses a scholarship for one year and then drops the sport? I don't see why you feel the ones who go pro should pay back the scholarship money but those who don't shouldn't.

I don't get why there's any obligation.

The only time I've heard about it was when an employer or prospective employer pays for it. The service academies have a really interesting choice. I understand there's basically two years to drop out without penalty. But once past that point the student is obligated to complete the degree and serve the commitment. If not, the entire cost of the education is due to the federal government.

 

[soccerdad72]

I don't get why there's any obligation.

There isn't one (and some feel there should be) - thus, the discussion.